Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-12-28
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.
Former Partners in the Boom Business
Disagree Over the Profits Thereof.
SWEETsER VS.. ALSIP.

Former Partners In the Boom Business
Disagree Over the Profits Thereof.
A. C. Sweetser has commenced suit
against E. K Alsip. and for cause of action
alleges that he and Alsip went into part
nership on March /, 1869, for the transac-
ton Of general real estate and insurance
business; that they were TO share equally
the profits and losses of the business; that
a proper account of the transactions of the
firm was to he kept; that the partnership
existed until January l, 1886 when MI.
Sweetser retired and assigned to Mr.. Alsip
his undivided one-half interest in the bust
ness and stock OF the firm for 50, 500. But
it was further agreed that it did not include
the undivided interest of Mr.. Sweetser in
any of their real estate, cattle, notes, mort
cages, book accounts, money in hand and
money in bank, or any money due said
SWeetser q Alsip, but the same was to be
collected and equally divided. Mr.. SWeetser
further agreed not TO engage in the same
for six months. Plaintiff further alleges
that as yet no settlement Of the accounts of
the firm have been made; that there is a
large amount of property that has not
been divided; that plaintiff at all times
rendered true accounts of his receipts and
expenditures which the defendant has
failed to do: that the defendant has at.
tempted to defraud plaintiff of his share of
the profits and kept and apprc priated to
his own use large sums of money belong
ing to the firm, which he failed to enter on
the books, or pay part of TO the plaintiff :;
that he had fraudulently and with intent
to cheat the plaintiff, secreted the fact that
such gains had been made; that the firm
were aware that certain piece Of land in
this county conld be bought very cheaply
and then resold at great gain; that de-
PENDANT agreed with G.. w. Locke that the
latter should furnish the purchase money :;
that if the ranch was sold well Locke was
to be refunded his purchase money,
and one-half OF the profits of the sale, the
firm to retain the other half; that said
ranch was purchased and afterwards resold
at 81 400 profit; that Locke received his
money according to agreement that de-
PENDANT, with intent to defraud, concealed
from plaintiff the terms of the contract and
appropriated the profits to his own use,
representing to SWeetser that the firm re-
ceived only commission of two per cent;
that the firm became aware that money
could be made by the purchase of various
pieces OF real estate in this city and then
resell them at an advance; that thereby
the firm made 81 500, which defendant ap-
propristed to his own USE informing the
plaintiff that the firm only received its
customary two per cent. commission for
selling that on various other transactions
where a profit was made to the firm, the
defendant appropriated the proceeds of the
sale fraudulently; that plaintiff believes
that many other transactions like above
were conducted by defendant, and has from
time to time applied to his own use money
belonging to the firm. The plaintiff de-
mands that an accounting of the transac-
tons of the firm be had, and that defend
ant be compelled to pay to him oae-half of
all moneys received from such sales and
transactions. Clinton L. White represents
the plaintiff and the cause has been set for
hearing before Judge Armstrong.